Jump to content

Talk:Sigeric (bishop)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources...

[edit]
Ealdgyth (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Ealdgyth (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sigeric (archbishop)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

I have only a few minor quibbles and a couple of stylistic suggestions:

  • Lead
  • "While archbishop, Sigeric was faced with Viking invasions… The archbishop also advised King Æthelred" – might be smoother with "He" instead of the second "archbishop"
  • Early career
  • "from secular clerics to monks" – I happen to know – only from reviewing WP articles – what a secular cleric is, but not all your readers will, and a link to Secular clergy might be helpful.
  • Archbishop
  • "written by an unknown member of group accompanying" – missing a definite article?
  • "The manuscript mentions the 23 churches in Rome were visited" – missing a "that"?
  • "Rome in the tenth-century" – I'd hyphenate "tenth-century" if using it as an attributive adjective, but not as a noun.

That's all I can find to cavil about. Over to you. En passant, I had never heard of the diocese of Ramsbury and am delighted to make its acquaintance. Tim riley talk 12:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got all these. On Ramsbury - there's a lot of weird ecclesiastical history lurking about in Medieval England... especially around the Norman Conquest, a LOT of dioceses moved about... some of them several times... heh. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I may well be adopting "Bishop of Ramsbury" as my alias next time I'm questioned by the police. Meanwhile, no problems with this article for GA. Tim riley talk 19:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]